The film was horrible overall. I felt as if there were little demons inside my skull stabbing the backs of my eyes with hot needles through at least seventy percent of the film. I should probably write up some sort of coherent and intelligent rebuke of the film, but I am actively trying to forget all but the non-needle-painful bits.
Sadly, I don't remember exactly what I said during my presentation. I mentioned, extremely briefly, a little of Renoir's biography. It was brief because we had covered him in decent detail earlier in the course. I spent a little time on new research by a Canadian scholar that used F.B.I. records to find that Renoir actually had been politically active while in the U.S.A., all accounts, including his own autobiography, to the contrary. (It was actually fairly interesting for me, once I got past all the psychoanalysis [which, if you know me, you know is one of my many annoyances] and can be found here at the time of writing.)
I, then, briefly summarized a good review of the film. Well, I quite poorly summarized the review and went on to show one of the most pain-inducing clips I could think of as exemplary of the film as a whole. I followed the clips with, "Yeah..that is why this presentation will be less than scholarly. I was in physical pain while viewing this film, and I could not force myself to watch it the multiple times required to achieve critical distance." I'm a little fuzzy on the exactness of the end of that quote, but if that's not completely accurate, it's close enough. To imagine what the rest of the presentation was like, here are the notes I was using for reference while I was up there (all chapter numbers are from the Criterion DVD):
Intro: Hi, it's me and this is what I'm talking about. Why not cheeky?
Renoir: Biography in brief to RiverTalk about F.B.I. stuff in Faulkner article: said wasn't politically active, but 200(+) pages of cross-listed references in F.B.I. files say differently.Affiliated with such politically active groups as: People's Education Association (Ben Barzman lost U.S. passport for affiliation with PEA), League of American Writers, Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Committee, Council of American-Soviet Friendship.
The RiverRenoir got the idea to do River after reading a New Yorker review saying it was probably the best English language novel to come out in years and no one would probably read it.
Read good review of River, show awful clip (ch. 13)
Speak on capricious nature of "masterworks" canons. Poll audience opinion?
Explanation of why presentation is less than scholarlyPhysical pain while watching scenes like example scene prevented further viewing. Lack of substantive writing where I looked.
Not all badSomething there in a crippled American not knowing what he wants while being desired by all and breaking their hearts. India not sure where it belongs: traditional or toward the British. Know enough not to mess with dangerous things you've no experience with in a place that isn't your home.
Oases of analgesia amidst the pain a.k.a. good sequences (chs. 4[?], 9 [if you can get past the voiceover], 15)
Indian filmmakers like Satyajit Ray, among others, got their start in film working on this movie.
Showed you could make a movie in India, vaguely about India, and it didn't have to include tigers, elephants, or Bengal lancers.
Talk Derrida archive stuff from Faulkner: Despite the good bits I fully intend to actively purge majority of film from my mental archive.
Questions/Comments/Criticisms/Declarations of Vendetta?
In long-form short, if you're feeling masochistic, don't watch this film. I'll be happy to drop by and slap you around a bit or hit you with a paddle. If you're feeling more masochistic than that, I suppose you could take a look at The River.
Also, to any of you impressionable first year B.U. film studies grads, it's not a very good idea to spring this sort of thing on your professor. I'd opt for the route Devon took. It seemed much more productive.
But it was kind of fun...
1 comment:
Well, I enjoyed it.
Post a Comment